Allowed

Dharmendra Kumar @ Chhote Lalla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2021BAIL/24459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Dharmendra Kumar seeking bail in a murder and cheating case. The High Court observed the applicant was not named in the FIR and evidence relied on was a co-accused's confession. The Court granted bail subject to several stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering with evidence, and appearance at key trial stages.

Dharmendra Kumar @ Chhote Lalla Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24459 of 2021 Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar @ Chhote Lalla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶5

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Dharmendra Kumar @ Chhote Lalla seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 101 of 2021, under Sections 420, 364, 392, 411, 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the there is no eye witness of the incident and the present case of circumstantial evidence. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first information report has been lodged against one unknown person and the owner of mobile no. 8146085677 who is stated to be unknown. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is argued that the applicant has no concern whatsoever with the said mobile number. During investigation, it has been disclosed that the said mobile belong to co-accused, Pradumn Gupta. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the implication of the applicant in the present case is on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused, Pradumn Gupta to the police which is not an admissible evidence. It is argued that there is no other legal evidence to implicate the applicant in the present case. It is further argued that there is no recovery whatsoever of any incriminating material from the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 3 of the affidavit and is in jail since 1.3.2021.

¶7

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although in a matter like this there is no eye witness to the incident but the investigation shows that the applicant was in contact prior and after to the murder with Pradumn Gupta and Amit through his mobile phone.

¶8

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant is only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, Pradumn Gupta to the police.

¶9

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Dharmendra Kumar @ Chhote Lalla , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶15

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶16

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

The bail application is allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.12.2021 Arif

¶20

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Dharmendra Kumar @ Chhote Lalla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar @ Chhote Lalla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Chaubey Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Ram Dular Vishwakrma @ Ashok Vishwakrma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishikesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P.